By Week 11, the project had narrowed enough that I needed to revisit the working question rather than continue using the broad version from the beginning of the module.

The earlier question around reducing barriers to independent international travel had been useful, but the research was now pointing much more strongly towards airports, sensory regulation, unpredictability and individual control.

Why the Original Question Was Too Broad

Independent international travel includes far more than the airport journey. It could include accommodation, transport, communication, safety, planning and social experience.

Trying to cover all of this in one Critical Report would make the argument too shallow.

The airport had become the clearest context because it concentrated many of the recurring barriers identified in both the literature and my primary research.

Moving Towards Shared Airport Accessibility

A stronger working question became:

How might shared airport accessibility better respond to the individual sensory needs of adults on the autism spectrum travelling independently?

This wording felt much closer to the actual design problem because it recognised the tension between shared accessibility provision and individual need.

The question had moved from “how can travel become more accessible?” towards “how can fixed airport support respond to changing individual need?”

Keeping Technology Out of the Question for Now

At this stage I still did not want to place VR, AI or biosensing directly into the research question.

Those technologies were possible responses to the problem rather than the problem itself.

Keeping the question focused on accessibility gave me more room to evaluate different design directions without forcing the report to justify one technology too early.

What I Took Forward

This review gave the Critical Report a much clearer boundary.

It also made the later literature selection easier because I could start cutting sources that no longer helped answer the more focused airport question.

As the research question narrowed, the title also needed to change.

The earlier title reflected the broader project around autism and independent travel, but it no longer communicated that airports had become the main context or that the project was beginning to focus on responsive accessibility.

Making the Context Clearer

I wanted the title to tell the reader immediately that the report was about airport accessibility rather than travel in general.

This was useful because it helped keep the scope disciplined while I was writing. If a paragraph had very little connection to airports, I needed to question whether it still belonged.

Avoiding a Premature Technology Title

I still did not want the title to become entirely technology-led.

At this stage, VR, AI and physiological sensing were developing areas of research, but I had not yet justified one final technological direction.

The title therefore needed to reflect the problem first and the emerging solution space second.

The title needed to become more specific without making the report sound as though the final design had already been decided.

What I Took Forward

This refinement eventually led towards the current title structure, where Responsive Airport Accessibility establishes the wider subject and the subtitle can explain the bioresponsive and wearable direction in more detail.

This felt much more accurate to the report I was actually beginning to write.